ICEF Vista amateur hour: Campus Co-location Committee follies

This year, LAUSD Superintendent Ramon Cortinez is trying a new way to handle the problems created by charter co-locations. He is requiring schools with co-locations to create a CAMPUS CO-LOCATION Committee (CCC) that would contain the plant manager, both schools principals, lead teachers and parent representatives from both the district and charter school. The committee's purpose is to: (1) create the Shared Use Agreement between district and charter school, and (2) incorporate the charter into the District safe school plan.
    On January 23, 2015, Superintendent Ramon Cortinez sent out a letter (see images) to all charter principals whose school had been given a preliminary co-location offer. In the letter, Cortinez lays out the timeline and steps that will be required.
   The last two items in the timeline are that in May the schools will form a CCC and the group will meet before the Memorial Day weekend.  LAUSD ESC West set up an initial meeting on May 21 for schools with co-locations on the Westside, including Stoner and ICEF. Stoner representatives showed up, but ICEF did not.
   In order to get the ball rolling, Stoner scheduled a meeting directly with ICEF for Friday, June 5. ICEF showed up with a member of the board, the ICEF Vista director and two teachers. They were unaware of the CCC requirements, claiming they never received the letter and objected to the presence of a Stoner parent at the meeting.  ICEF also claimed that they had not received an invitation to the May 21 meeting to which the LAUSD Prop 39 representative responded with a sign and and a "No."
      So, the meeting technically wasn't the first CCC meeting since the CCC contains the plant manager, ICEF principal and ICEF Charter  parents.  However, the ICEF representatives did try to begin working on Use Agreement.

   A few items were discussed, and ICEF's lack of basic knowledge regarding the co-location were troubling to say the least.
   ICEF Director Buczek began negotiations by suggesting having similar start times.  I objected citing traffic and safety issues, and also noted that because of the tension between the  two schools, we would want time between the schools'  start times. (Besides, ICEF had told their community that there would be a definite divide between the school and similar start times would not allow for their desired divide.)
  The issue of  campus clean up came up and ICEF director suggested that a parent or staff could clean up their side of campus. I objected, and pointed out that the final agreement specifically states that LAUSD will handle all campus maintenance for the charter.
 This made me question, had the ICEF staff even read the agreement?

  One thought keep coming to me during the meeting, "What is this, amateur hour?" ICEF Vista staff were unprepared and lacked basic understanding about what they were getting in to. It was very disheartening to witness.  If this is what we are seeing before the co-location, what can we expect for next year?
   Last time we saw what a "Sak Fifth Avenue" charter school who didn't know the rules could do: escaped children; student stripped and hose on campus. What will ICEF, a "99 cents" charter do this year?

ICEF SSC rescheduled to tomorrow 4/16

Maybe it's was just a coincidence that when the Stoner community started inquiring about the next ICEF Vista School Site Council meeting, the meeting was rescheduled. 

    At any rate, as promised, the Stoner community representatives will be attending the SSC meeting tomorrow to represent the community's concerns about the co-location, and dispel the myths about the co-location and the opposition.
    In February, the ICEF SSC/ELAC discussed the co-location. When the Stoner community saw the meeting minutes in March, they were incensed and referred to it as "stealing from Peter to give to Paul".
     ICEF's plan was to take set aside rooms at Stoner that are used for music, art, special needs and parent's center, among other resources, to open up classrooms on the ICEF Vista St. Gerard campus to bring "art, computer lab and resource room"
   We hope the ICEF community will have a better understanding of our concerns once they have a human face to the concerns. We look forward to speaking to the ICEF community tomorrow.

     

Stoner community to bring concerns to ICEF SSC/ELAC

ICEF Vista SSC/ELAC less then 72 hours to meeting and no posted agenda

      In an unprecedented move, a community school is taking their grips to the SSC/ELAC of a charter school that wants to co-locate next year.
     This Thursday, April 9 at 5 PM, the Stoner community is taking their concerns about the proposed co-location to the ICEF School Site Council (SSC) and the ICEF Vista English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC) monthly meeting in room 11 of ICEF Vista on the St. Gerard campus.

     Stoner parents and community are mad and are fighting back aginst the proposed co-location. Parents are saying that it amounts to "robbing Peter to pay to Paul" because resources would be shifted from Stoner students to give those same resources to ICEF students.
     The ICEF SSC/ELAC previously discussed the co-location at Stoner in their February meeting. When the Stoner community saw the meeting minutes in March, they were incensed and wanted to attend the next SSC/ELAC meeting to express their outrage to the proposed co-location.


_______
      However, there is concern if the meeting will actually happen. Here we are, less then 72 hours from the meeting, and reports are that no schedule has been posted physically or online. This could create a violation of the Brown Act for the ICEF SSC/ELAC meeting.

    If the meeting happens on Thursday, or whenever it happens, the Stoner community will be there.

Meetings about proposed ICEF co-location: Stoner ES "empty" classrooms explained

     This past week, LAUSD held two meetings in the Stoner Elementary School auditorium for parents and community members to inform them of the proposed co-location of ICEF Vista on the Stoner ES campus for 2015/16. Since these were open meetings, I invited ICEF administration, teachers, members of the board and community to attend the meetings so that they could hear first hand the concerns of the Stoner parents and the neighborhood community about any co-location. A few ICEF parents showed up, but no ICEF officials attended.
    Once again, the Stoner community was told that "empty" classrooms on campus would be given to a charter school. Principal Stapleton explained that according to the Prop. 39  co-location assessment, Stoner ES had 15 "empty" classrooms. Prop. 39 methodology only counts as full a classroom with a teacher and a roster of students. Any set-aside rooms or special program rooms are considered "empty." 
     In reality, of the 15 "empty" classrooms, only 1 room is truly not being used. The other 14 "empty" rooms are being used for:  a 60 instrument orchestral music program, a computer lab, art classes, the parents center, a theater program, LA’s Best (after school program), a Speech therapist, a virtual dental clinic; a counselor, a psychologist, a teaching & learning PD, an AP office and adult English education classes for the community.
     Removing any of these rooms and resources would be devastating to the students of Stoner Elementary and the local community it serves.
     Next year, Stoner will also be starting a Bilingual Spanish Maintenance program and building a STEM (Science, technology, engineering & math) laboratory. These programs were not taken into account by the Prop 39 assessment. The bilingual program currently has enough students signed up for 2 classes of K for Fall 2015/16.

     ICEF is asking for 9 rooms. Which of these nine programs would you have us give up or reduce to make space for a co-location? Which programs would you give up if your children and community were involved? The bilingual program? the STEM lab? Music? Arts? Counselor, psychologist, dental clinic? The after school program or theater?
      What do you think the atmosphere will be like on campus? How do you think the Stoner students will feel knowing that they won't have orchestra or art anymore because of the ICEF students are in those rooms? How will the ICEF student feel on campus?

     This co-location would have the local Del Rey community fighting over resources in their own community with their own neighbors. The few ICEF parents who attended the informational meeting expressed concern and distress at what the co-location would truly mean not only for Stoner, but for their own children.
     I hope that ICEF is able to understand that this proposed co-location is a bad idea and the request should be withdrawn immediately, but the Stoner community is not taking any chances and is going to make sure that they hear our concerns loud and clear.

     This coming week, the Stoner community will be conducting a letter writing/emailing campaign and collecting signatures for a petition opposing the colocation to present to the ICEF Board of Trustees at their monthly meeting this Thursday, February 19.
     Our hope is that ICEF will drop its bid for rooms and not continue the colocation process past the March 1 deadline to respond to the Feb 1 preliminary co-location proposal.
   

¿Co-location? ICEF requests space at Stoner for 2015/16

    After last year's disastrous co-location of Citizens of the World Charter Mar Vista at Stoner Avenue Elementary School, we didn't expect a co-location request so soon, but today we received notice from LAUSD that ICEF Vista Elementary Charter Academy has requested a co-location at Stoner ES for 2015/16.
     I hope ICEF knows what they are asking for. The previous co-location united the school and local Del Rey community against co-locations and galvanized both communities' opposition to co-locations at our community schools. The communities' mettle was tested and this time they are experienced and organized.
      The previous co-location was met with petitions, protests (#1, #2, #3) and gang activity. The school year ended with the co-location being terminated and the charter's executive director resigning. If you don't believe it, peruse this blog. It's all documented here. Plus, the story was reported in print media (here, here, here and here), on Television (here and here), and radio (here.)

_________________
 ***Is this really happening again? or has Stoner become LAUSD's  joke non-offer like the Horce Mann offer to CWC last year? You know they aren't going to accept, but at least LAUSD could say they offered something. Either way, we aren't taking any chances and will be opposing this co-location full force. For all involved, I hope that ICEF declines this co-location sooner rather than later.